HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

GDT | 4/25 | Rangers @ Sabres | 7:00pm | Game 1 | Versus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2007, 09:27 AM
  #1076
Anthony Mauro
DraftBuzz Hockey
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,740
vCash: 500
LETS GO RANGERSSSSSS, take the next one at buffalo and BRING IT BACK HOMEE!!!!

__________________
DRAFTBUZZ HOCKEY
2015 DraftBuzz NHL Draft Guide

TWITTER
@draftbuzzhockey
Anthony Mauro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:32 AM
  #1077
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
He didn't beat him with speed...he was fiddling with the puck at the blueline, and Rachunek went after him from a bad angle, leaving the entire side along the boards open for Vanek to sprint down.

It was bad, bad positioning by Rachunek. I think he had this idea he could strip the puck from Vanek and turn up ice, but instead it just turned out horribly.
Should Ds be able to strip the puck from attackers all the time, there would be no hockey game. If D does that, he usually gets petted on the back once is back to the bench, but if happened it is a forward's misfortune. You were correct in your recollections. Rachunek made Vanek to go by the boards, but that is what he was supposed to do, i.e. not to let him go inside. I am not saying Karel played great in that instance, but you cannot blame him fir the goal either. He just tried to take body and missed.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:43 AM
  #1078
Clock
Moderator
 
Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 21,313
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balej20 View Post
Well I know that the Buffalo fans will generalize it though. That's just how it is.

"Oh go look over at the Rangers board, they're all cryin!" I know the game. It just doesn't look good.
Come on, man. If you're going to say that generalization of entire fanbases is lame (and it is), then you probably shouldn't do it yourself in the exact same post. "Buffalo fans" in general are not all making fun of you guys for being upset about a goal that was obviously not clear-cut.

It was a questionable goal. I think anyone who says that it was definitive either way probably didn't really pay too much attention to the goal or are too upset / elated with the verdict.

Anyhow, I'm sure your team is going to come out hard Friday - should be a good game.

Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:44 AM
  #1079
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nich View Post
exactly...plus i thought his positioning on kotalik on his goal was terrible. he just blew by karel
Kotalik's goal was just a lucky shot.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:52 AM
  #1080
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Should Ds be able to strip the puck from attackers all the time, there would be no hockey game. If D does that, he usually gets petted on the back once is back to the bench, but if happened it is a forward's misfortune. You were correct in your recollections. Rachunek made Vanek to go by the boards, but that is what he was supposed to do, i.e. not to let him go inside. I am not saying Karel played great in that instance, but you cannot blame him fir the goal either. He just tried to take body and missed.
Nah, his positioning was definitely off. He came in way too much from the side and gave Vanek a clear lane past him and into the zone. Rachunek's job there is to hold the blueline and make sure Vanek doesn't get past him. Instead, he gave Vanek a clear path into the zone, and Vanek took it.

Great play by Vanek, poor play by Rachunek.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 09:54 AM
  #1081
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
There's no way to determine what's going on in someone's mind which means that intentions should not be taken into consideration. You surely cannot ask him, because he will just lie. His ACTIONS should determine whether or not it's a goal. If you can clearly see that his illegally putting the puck into the net was not intentional (such as the puck just hitting off his hand/skate) then it would be a goal.

However, since you did see his hand coming off of his stick and strike the puck there is no way to say that it was due to the fact that he could have been bracing himself for contact with the net instead of to deflect the puck into net for a goal.

The fact that his hand came off the stick should throw out any question of intent. Even if it wasn't intentional, the fact that his hand came off the stick shows that there could have possibily been intent to strike the puck with his hand purposely.

The officials said that he did not intend to hit the puck with his hand and was trying to brace for impact. There is no way to prove that, which is why awarding that as a goal is bogus. The actions of the player showed that he did in fact put the puck into the net illegally and that he could have possibly done it purposely. Therefore the right call was no goal especially since it was the original call on the ice.

The Rangers didn't lose because of that goal, the game was already over, but the league blew that call big time and it makes you wonder if there really is a bias.


Last edited by WhipNash27: 04-26-2007 at 10:02 AM.
WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:04 AM
  #1082
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
There's no way to determine what's going on in someone's mind which means that intentions should not be taken into consideration. You surely cannot ask him, because he will just lie. His ACTIONS should determine whether or not it's a goal. If you can clearly see that his illegally putting the puck into the net was not intentional (such as the puck just hitting off his hand/skate) then it would be a goal.

However, since you did see his hand coming off of his stick and strike the puck there is no way to say that it was due to the fact that he could have been bracing himself for contact with the net instead of to deflect the puck into net for a goal.

The fact that his hand came off the stick should throw out any question of intent. Even if it wasn't intentional, the fact that his hand came off the stick shows that there could have possibily been intent to strike the puck with his hand purposely.

The officials said that he did not intend to hit the puck with his hand and was trying to brace for impact. There is no way to prove that, which is why awarding that as a goal is bogus. The actions of the player showed that he did in fact put the puck into the net illegally and that he could have possibly done it purposely. Therefore the right call was no goal especially since it was the original call on the ice.

The Rangers didn't lose because of that goal, the game was already over, but the league blew that call big time and it makes you wonder if there really is a bias.
Do you ranger fans have a replay of this "goal"

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:05 AM
  #1083
Kostik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
I sincerely hope the Rangers players want the friday game to start as badly as I do. If they don't, I can pick up their paycheck.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but players are not paid for playoffs

Kostik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:09 AM
  #1084
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
Do you ranger fans have a replay of this "goal"
http://www.nhl.com/video/app?compone...sp=3&sp=SGoals
That's the best I can find, you can hardly see anything though.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:11 AM
  #1085
bflohockeygirl
homesick sabres fan
 
bflohockeygirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 9th circle of hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Rx View Post
I think we all get the number in our heads a bit inflated due to the influx of bandwagon-esque posters posting on the board and flaming everyone without a Sabres avatar and trolling every thread lately. As I said a hundred times, it's a shame since the fan base (and the TRUE fan base) is a seriously rabid, amazing fan base who put up with crappy teams about as long as we did.
That's understandable. I don't see as many of the posters you're talking about because...well, they don't tend to bother with the actual Sabres board, and that's where I spend most of my time here.

Generally, bandwagoners don't bother me too much because I figure we all started somewhere, and when the dust settles maybe some of them will find they really like the sport, and that's good for hockey. And those who don't...eh, once they've jumped off, I won't have to spend a year in line for the washroom during intermissions anymore...

__________________
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.

Study hard. Be evil.
bflohockeygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:19 AM
  #1086
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
There's no way to determine what's going on in someone's mind which means that intentions should not be taken into consideration. You surely cannot ask him, because he will just lie. His ACTIONS should determine whether or not it's a goal. If you can clearly see that his illegally putting the puck into the net was not intentional (such as the puck just hitting off his hand/skate) then it would be a goal.

However, since you did see his hand coming off of his stick and strike the puck there is no way to say that it was due to the fact that he could have been bracing himself for contact with the net instead of to deflect the puck into net for a goal.

The fact that his hand came off the stick should throw out any question of intent. Even if it wasn't intentional, the fact that his hand came off the stick shows that there could have possibily been intent to strike the puck with his hand purposely.

The officials said that he did not intend to hit the puck with his hand and was trying to brace for impact. There is no way to prove that, which is why awarding that as a goal is bogus. The actions of the player showed that he did in fact put the puck into the net illegally and that he could have possibly done it purposely. Therefore the right call was no goal especially since it was the original call on the ice.

The Rangers didn't lose because of that goal, the game was already over, but the league blew that call big time and it makes you wonder if there really is a bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
http://www.nhl.com/video/app?compone...sp=3&sp=SGoals
That's the best I can find, you can hardly see anything though.
How is it that you are so certain that the league made the wrong call, but the "best you could find" hardly shows anything?

I don't ask to make fun of you, I'm just wondering how you can make the first conclusion based on the second post.

EDIT: Oh yeah, the actual reason I came here was to ask if there is any news on Rosival.

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:20 AM
  #1087
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
Watching it on TV for about 5 minutes how about that? Maybe you didn't watch the game because anyone who did saw that replay for about 5 minutes and even the people on TV were saying it was no goal.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:22 AM
  #1088
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
Watching it on TV for about 5 minutes how about that? Maybe you didn't watch the game because anyone who did saw that replay for about 5 minutes and even the people on TV were saying it was no goal.
I watched the game, yes, on TSN, and they said that it WAS a goal.

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:26 AM
  #1089
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,540
vCash: 500
I did not see the game. I have been looking all day to find a replay of some sorts though

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:28 AM
  #1090
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
Nah, his positioning was definitely off. He came in way too much from the side and gave Vanek a clear lane past him and into the zone. Rachunek's job there is to hold the blueline and make sure Vanek doesn't get past him. Instead, he gave Vanek a clear path into the zone, and Vanek took it.

Great play by Vanek, poor play by Rachunek.
No one can hold the blue line nowdays. Rangers were penetrating in with no rpoblem.The attempt to do it must be made, but it is ludicrous to hold D-man accountable for not stopping the attacker at blue line. What difference in position should have allowed Rachunek to stop Vanek? Only if he would skated backward with Vanek's speed being in front of him. Dream on. It was not possible for Karel. It was Mara's duty. Mara had it done all correctly, except for sliding. He slided partially into Lundqvist making difficult for Henke to advance. Mara must have had to push off up front to prevent backward movement on the slide, but it is easy said than done... I would blame Mara more then Rachunek, although, as I said, the credit should go to Vanek.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:29 AM
  #1091
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
TSN is so bias towards Buffalo is sad. Just watching all of their clips on their site and the way they talk about Buffalo and put down the Rangers is disgusting.

If there weren't so many penalties in this game the Rangers would have won, I'm confident of that. They were clearly the superior team in the beginning of the game until the penalty parade came along and ruined the flow of the game. By the time the game got to 3-0 the penalties were 6-2 in favor of Buffalo. When you're on the PP the whole time it's much easier to get a flow going than when you're on the PK.

And don't tell me that the Sabres were angels either. I remember one play in particular. Cullen gets a penalty for a lovetap to the hand which led the first goal. Then I remember watching a couple minutes later and Hossa is getting hooked all the way down the ice where the camera is zoomed in on him going down the ice and I counted 5 times that the Sabres player reached in and hooked his hands and nothing was called. If that's not biased that I don't know what is.

Oh and the fact that Callahan gets high sticked twice, once when Cullen got called for his penalty too, doesn't help matters. If that was called it would have never been 1-0 and it would have been a completely different game.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:33 AM
  #1092
BackGroundMusic
rebuildingeverywhere
 
BackGroundMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,967
vCash: 500
Forget about it.

My point for being here, again, is to ask about Rozsival's status

BackGroundMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:39 AM
  #1093
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BikeGiftingMan View Post
Forget about it.

My point for being here, again, is to ask about Rozsival's status
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Rx View Post
"Michal Rozsival was called day-to-day by Tom Renney, but was actually seen walking without much hindrance after the game."

As per Sam's blog at http://rangers.lohudblogs.com/

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:44 AM
  #1094
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyF27 View Post
TSN is so bias towards Buffalo is sad. Just watching all of their clips on their site and the way they talk about Buffalo and put down the Rangers is disgusting.

If there weren't so many penalties in this game the Rangers would have won, I'm confident of that. They were clearly the superior team in the beginning of the game until the penalty parade came along and ruined the flow of the game. By the time the game got to 3-0 the penalties were 6-2 in favor of Buffalo. When you're on the PP the whole time it's much easier to get a flow going than when you're on the PK.
If that's the case then we should win the next one then, right? What is the point of arguing whether a probably useless goal counted or not or whether penalties that already happened killed it for us? Rangers should just put this one behind them and not lose focus.

But seriously, Buffalo is a much more polished team. If you give them that many PP chances they will gain huge momentum that will be almost impossible to regain. The only way to beat this team is to score FIRST, and then frustrate them with the D for the rest of the game. The first period we had yesterday showed exactly the way you're NOT supposed to play against them.

Anyway, enough ranting. Next game is unbelievably important and I better see the Rangers playing like it's their last game

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:46 AM
  #1095
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
No one can hold the blue line nowdays. Rangers were penetrating in with no rpoblem.The attempt to do it must be made, but it is ludicrous to hold D-man accountable for not stopping the attacker at blue line. What difference in position should have allowed Rachunek to stop Vanek? Only if he would skated backward with Vanek's speed being in front of him. Dream on. It was not possible for Karel. It was Mara's duty. Mara had it done all correctly, except for sliding. He slided partially into Lundqvist making difficult for Henke to advance. Mara must have had to push off up front to prevent backward movement on the slide, but it is easy said than done... I would blame Mara more then Rachunek, although, as I said, the credit should go to Vanek.
I don't understand this apparent defense of players when they screw up. How can you possibly say Rachunek isn't to blame for getting badly beaten by Vanek? This isn't an "I hate Rachunek and he can do no right! Lynch him now!" post. But he just plain took the wrong angle on Vanek and got beat.

Yes it was a great play by Vanek, and yes Mara could have played it better, but at the same time, yes Rachunek made a bad play.

Why do we have to stick up for players when they screw up sometimes? They all screw up at times.

Quote:
Oh and the fact that Callahan gets high sticked twice, once when Cullen got called for his penalty too, doesn't help matters. If that was called it would have never been 1-0 and it would have been a completely different game.
That was particularly frustrating, but it wasn't the PP the Sabres scored on. The one they scored on was when Straka went to the box after turning the puck over in the defensive zone.

But that was a pretty blatant hook and then high stick on Callahan that went unnoticed.

BUT...the Rangers did a terrible job of staying out of the box. The Cullen call was about the only one I saw that they didn't deserve.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:52 AM
  #1096
Slewfoot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Amboy NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Video Replay

Since I haven't heard or read an 'official' clarification on the reason the goal was allowed .... Is it possible that the referee that waived off the goal did so because he thought the net was knocked off before the puck went in ? When the video replay was reviewed it was obvious that the net was intact when the puck went in. This would be the 'conclusive' video evidence required to reverse the call on the ice. All that remained was to determine if the puck was knocked in with the glove intentionally which may or may not have been 'conclusive'.

Slewfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 10:57 AM
  #1097
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot View Post
Since I haven't heard or read an 'official' clarification on the reason the goal was allowed .... Is it possible that the referee that waived off the goal did so because he thought the net was knocked off before the puck went in ? When the video replay was reviewed it was obvious that the net was intact when the puck went in. This would be the 'conclusive' video evidence required to reverse the call on the ice. All that remained was to determine if the puck was knocked in with the glove intentionally which may or may not have been 'conclusive'.
That's definitely part of the problem, not knowing the exact call. I'm going off what the guys on Vs. said about it.

They explicitly said that the call was made because the reviewers decided he didn't intentionally knock the puck in with his hand.

Whether Vs. is right about that, I don't know.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 11:21 AM
  #1098
Blueshirt Special
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Blueshirt Special's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
No one can hold the blue line nowdays. Rangers were penetrating in with no rpoblem.The attempt to do it must be made, but it is ludicrous to hold D-man accountable for not stopping the attacker at blue line. What difference in position should have allowed Rachunek to stop Vanek? Only if he would skated backward with Vanek's speed being in front of him. Dream on. It was not possible for Karel. It was Mara's duty. Mara had it done all correctly, except for sliding. He slided partially into Lundqvist making difficult for Henke to advance. Mara must have had to push off up front to prevent backward movement on the slide, but it is easy said than done... I would blame Mara more then Rachunek, although, as I said, the credit should go to Vanek.
Thank you!

Blueshirt Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 11:32 AM
  #1099
Bruce Ciskie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Proctor, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bruce Ciskie Send a message via Yahoo to Bruce Ciskie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewfoot View Post
Since I haven't heard or read an 'official' clarification on the reason the goal was allowed .... Is it possible that the referee that waived off the goal did so because he thought the net was knocked off before the puck went in ? When the video replay was reviewed it was obvious that the net was intact when the puck went in. This would be the 'conclusive' video evidence required to reverse the call on the ice. All that remained was to determine if the puck was knocked in with the glove intentionally which may or may not have been 'conclusive'.
Wait...you're going to wait until all the facts come in before you judge? HARK!

Bruce Ciskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2007, 11:32 AM
  #1100
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,478
vCash: 500
That's why the NFL is smart. They tell you why the play is under review. They'll say something like:
The Jets have challenged the ruling on the field of a completed pass.

So why can't they say something like,
The play is under review for the net being knocked off before the puck was put into the net.
The play is under review for the player using his hand to put the puck into the net
The play is under review for the player using a high stick to score a goal
The play is under review for the player kicking the puck into the net

Something like that would make it so much better. The league really tries to be so secretive .

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.